How much of a so-called skeptic convention can be about religion?

  • Richard - 11 years ago

    Of course, as much as necessary. But I put down no more than 25 percent because traditionally skepticism has not emphasized atheism and I do think some modicum of respect should be given for people who don't like that kind of thing. A skeptical event should be no excuse for you militant atheists out there to have a week-end-long piss-Christ fest. There are atheist venues for that. And religion is special because it is much more important to many more people than other supernatural beliefs that skeptics deal with, and you have to respect that if you're going to reach people.

  • dkmnow - 11 years ago

    I hereby declare Torbjörn Larsson the undisputed champion in the 2010 Skeptitheon Vs. Atheisepticon Grudge Match! Congratulations everybody -- it's OVER!

    Now...what's for dessert?

  • Sebastian - 11 years ago

    As long as the question is how much of a con CAN be about religion and atheism, the only sensible answer is "all of it". Every other choice sets a completely arbitrary limit without a logical reason. Any one convention on skepticism could potentially be devoted entirely to the topic of religion.

  • Torbjörn Larsson, OM - 11 years ago

    dkmnow's self-defeating comment is a good explanation of the poll, which is demonstrating against the advocacy of censorship. I'm not sure it was intentional, the strawman reference is also self-referential which makes it a twist on a twist, so I had to point it out without the "newspeak" cluttering.

  • dkmnow - 11 years ago

    Hey, I've got a better one for you:

    "Should an in-group's poll be allowed to exist if it deliberately tries to maneuver out-groups into unwittingly advocating censorship?"

    O -- I believe in Santa Clause.
    O -- I believe in the Easter Bunny.
    O -- I believe in the Tooth Fairy.
    O -- No in-group would ever be so dishonest.

    Please place your votes in the "Straw Man" file and leave it on my desk.

  • Jonathan - 11 years ago

    I agree with Alex. The choices seem silly. Why does it have to have some numerical cut off point in which it either is or isn't acceptable? As much as felt necessary should be an appropriate response. Based on the phrasing of the question and the available choices I went with "all of it, why not?" Because if necessary all of it should be. There is no arbitrary cut off point in which it becomes unacceptable.

  • Alex - 11 years ago

    This is a false choice. There should be an option for "however much is most appropriate".

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment